TED RALL COLUMN: Tea Party: Why the Right Doesn't Gt It
It's the Intellectual Inconsistency, Stupid
Larry Elder, a black conservative columnist and Tea Party speaker, has a piece out this week titled "Tea Party: Why the Left Doesn't Get It."
Setting aside the question of why any African-American would vote Republican (did any Jews vote for the Nazis?), Elder's column unintentionally reveals the intellectual inconsistency of the Tea Party.
For liberals the Ur question about the Tea Party concerns the timing of its origin: February 2009. Where, they ask, were these self-declared deficit hawks when Bush and his Republican Congress turned Clinton's budget surplus into record deficits? Where were these advocates of small government when Bush hired the biggest roster of federal employees in history and created a new federal department—the Department of Homeland Security—that became a national laughingstock due to its incompetence? Where were these Constitutional purists when Bush suspended habeas corpus, built concentration camps and signed off on torture?
"As to Bush's non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, [right-wing] people did complain—lots of them and frequently," Elder points out.
And he's right. There was grumbling. I remember.
But there weren't anti-Bush rallies, much less scary guys showing up at presidential appearances brandishing automatic weapons. Under Bush, of course, said scary guys would have been declared "enemy combatants" and tortured into psychosis like Jose Padilla.
"Better late than never," Elder lamely retorts.
Another right-wing columnist, Jonah Goldberg, goes so far as to call the Tea Party "a delayed Bush backlash."
But 57 percent of Tea Partiers say they like Bush. Huh.
On most of the policies Tea Partiers claim to deplore—deficit spending, expansive government, the bank bailouts—Obama is identical to Bush. The only difference between the two men is the color of their skin. Which makes lefties think anti-Obama racism is the Tea Party's true driving force.
As Paul Butler wrote in the New York Times: "No student of American history would be surprised to learn that when the United States elects its first non-white president, a strong anti-government movement rises up."
"Slanderous hogwash," Goldberg calls the charge that the Tea Party is motivated by racism.
If not racism, then what?
Stupidity. Or at least intellectual dishonesty.
Elder's qualifier that righties didn't like "Bush's non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending" is revealing. Bush's two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy will account for a staggering 70 percent of the federal deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. (Obama's bailouts will cost five percent.)
Either you're against deficits, or you're not. Making an exception for optional military spending—neither the Afghan nor the Iraq war was necessary—is like saying you adore sharks except for all the sharp teeth.
My leftie friends find the Tea Party frustrating. They applaud Tea Partiers' distrust of government, their willingness to take to the streets to express their grievances. If only the Left had their energy!
Progressives also find much to like in Tea Partiers' calls for a return to core values embodied by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But only in theory.
The Tea Party's selective Chinese-menu style approach to constitutional purity and small government is appalling. They're loud and proud when it comes to the right to own guns, yet oppose or remain silent when it comes to the right of gays to sleep with whomever they want-and marry him. They decry government intrusion in the form of healthcare reform, but have nothing to say about the fact that the NSA is listening to their phone calls and reading their email. They complain about illegal immigrants but not about the corporations that hire them. And what should be more terrifying to opponents of big guvmint than reserving the right—as Bush did and Obama does—to assassinate American citizens just for fun? (The Tea Party is silent on this too.)
If the Tea Party is to emerge as a potent force in American politics, it will need to develop a coherent platform with broad appeal across class, party and racial lines. An appeal to fiscal sanity, constitutional freedoms and a government that keeps out of our bedrooms could form the foundation of a new majority. Otherwise, the Tea Party will be remembered as the latest incarnation of the nativist white wing of the GOP (c.f. "angry white males" circa 1995).
(Ted Rall is working on a radical political manifesto for publication this fall. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
Larry Elder, a black conservative columnist and Tea Party speaker, has a piece out this week titled "Tea Party: Why the Left Doesn't Get It."
Setting aside the question of why any African-American would vote Republican (did any Jews vote for the Nazis?), Elder's column unintentionally reveals the intellectual inconsistency of the Tea Party.
For liberals the Ur question about the Tea Party concerns the timing of its origin: February 2009. Where, they ask, were these self-declared deficit hawks when Bush and his Republican Congress turned Clinton's budget surplus into record deficits? Where were these advocates of small government when Bush hired the biggest roster of federal employees in history and created a new federal department—the Department of Homeland Security—that became a national laughingstock due to its incompetence? Where were these Constitutional purists when Bush suspended habeas corpus, built concentration camps and signed off on torture?
"As to Bush's non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, [right-wing] people did complain—lots of them and frequently," Elder points out.
And he's right. There was grumbling. I remember.
But there weren't anti-Bush rallies, much less scary guys showing up at presidential appearances brandishing automatic weapons. Under Bush, of course, said scary guys would have been declared "enemy combatants" and tortured into psychosis like Jose Padilla.
"Better late than never," Elder lamely retorts.
Another right-wing columnist, Jonah Goldberg, goes so far as to call the Tea Party "a delayed Bush backlash."
But 57 percent of Tea Partiers say they like Bush. Huh.
On most of the policies Tea Partiers claim to deplore—deficit spending, expansive government, the bank bailouts—Obama is identical to Bush. The only difference between the two men is the color of their skin. Which makes lefties think anti-Obama racism is the Tea Party's true driving force.
As Paul Butler wrote in the New York Times: "No student of American history would be surprised to learn that when the United States elects its first non-white president, a strong anti-government movement rises up."
"Slanderous hogwash," Goldberg calls the charge that the Tea Party is motivated by racism.
If not racism, then what?
Stupidity. Or at least intellectual dishonesty.
Elder's qualifier that righties didn't like "Bush's non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending" is revealing. Bush's two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy will account for a staggering 70 percent of the federal deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. (Obama's bailouts will cost five percent.)
Either you're against deficits, or you're not. Making an exception for optional military spending—neither the Afghan nor the Iraq war was necessary—is like saying you adore sharks except for all the sharp teeth.
My leftie friends find the Tea Party frustrating. They applaud Tea Partiers' distrust of government, their willingness to take to the streets to express their grievances. If only the Left had their energy!
Progressives also find much to like in Tea Partiers' calls for a return to core values embodied by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But only in theory.
The Tea Party's selective Chinese-menu style approach to constitutional purity and small government is appalling. They're loud and proud when it comes to the right to own guns, yet oppose or remain silent when it comes to the right of gays to sleep with whomever they want-and marry him. They decry government intrusion in the form of healthcare reform, but have nothing to say about the fact that the NSA is listening to their phone calls and reading their email. They complain about illegal immigrants but not about the corporations that hire them. And what should be more terrifying to opponents of big guvmint than reserving the right—as Bush did and Obama does—to assassinate American citizens just for fun? (The Tea Party is silent on this too.)
If the Tea Party is to emerge as a potent force in American politics, it will need to develop a coherent platform with broad appeal across class, party and racial lines. An appeal to fiscal sanity, constitutional freedoms and a government that keeps out of our bedrooms could form the foundation of a new majority. Otherwise, the Tea Party will be remembered as the latest incarnation of the nativist white wing of the GOP (c.f. "angry white males" circa 1995).
(Ted Rall is working on a radical political manifesto for publication this fall. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
posted by Ted Rall at
12:42 PM
23 Comments:
Ted,
You're certainly right to call out the Tea Party folks for not hollering to beat the band when Bush was president.
But there are two problems:
One is that "better late than never" is true. Now, will they continue their protests if there is a Republican sweep in 2010 and a Republican victory in 2012? I certainly hope so. If they don't, then they deserve to be excoriated. Until then, not so much.
The second problem is that they were not "automatic weapons." Not that they aren't deadly weapons, just not automatic weapons. Please be clear.
Exactly! When I ask someone that from the Tea Party I always get the blank stare. They can't tell you why it's okay to go for broke invading the Middle East but not when it comes to recovery, bail-outs and reform. The way their minds work is really surreal.
Great piece, well put.
What is Fox News stance on protesting?
Whenever the Left were protesting the wars Fox made fun of them and stopped a step short of calling them UN-American. Now with the Tea Party they are all for it even if there are a few "bad apples" (just about all of them are rotten).
If it were to be suggested that Obama will resign once Iraq and Afghanistan were done (prior 2012), would the Tea Party call for an end to these wars immediately?
To watch the talking heads on Fox would really be entertainment.
The guy brandishing the automatic weapon was black.
deficit spending, expansive government, the bank bailouts—Obama is identical to Bush.
If you believe this statement, you are an idiot.
Here's a news flash: Tea partiers are richer and better educated then the general population. I love sticking it to Aggie with his own arguments.
As I have said before here in the comments section, they have to wake up and realize that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and all the rest of the gang don't care about them, they're only using the Tea Party for votes and money. Only then will they become a coherent force for change.
However, if there is one good thing about the Tea Party, it may be that they are breathing down Obama's neck enough for him to stop playing Junior Neo-Con and start actually doing something to turn the economy around. If Obama doesn't know what "tarred, feathered, and hung" means, then Michelle Obama certainly does.
Good article, Ted.
I agree, the inconsistency with which anyone applies their principles usually betrays their underlying motivation. This failure of integrity between thought, speech and application makes the Tea Party laughable. I'm not frustrated at all with them (I'm sure I'm also not one of your leftie friends either) at all, I am very amused by what they do, and the flagrant idiocy they flaunt. By the time the 2012 election comes along, the RNC that year is going to look like Chicago in 1968.
Susan: Fixing the economy requires making choices that are not politically feasible. I doubt Obama even has a clue what would be needed, but even if he did, he has no real incentive to attempt it. None of them do.
I see the Tea Party as a place to go for those of us abused, misused, and discarded by the other two parties...which really doesn't have a spit's worth of difference between them. Both the left and the right think it is a political movement they can either dismiss or take advantage of. Both are in for a rude shock.
Susan... <> This is either the richest sexual innuendo ever, or someone's confused "hung" and "hanged"! The image of Barry having sex in a chicken suit came to mind. It would be the only thing I'd respect about him. LOL.
Seriously though, there's a long history of whites sacrificing their own good just for the pleasure of watching others suffer more. Capitalists and their state have been more than willing to stoke the disparities, keep the workers divided with labor market segmentation, housing and insurance discrimination, and locking up as many Blacks and Latinos as possible. I don't think historical and economic analysis... or any honest reflection... is on the menu for the Tea Partyers. Or for America under a white supremacist president like Barack Obama.
Until our discourse stops resembling the first half-hour of 'Blazing Saddles' with Obama in the rold of the sheriff, Obama should ignore the peons. If we're so base as to not voice our concerns in sentences, we need a king.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: thinking back 10-14 years is instructive.
In the 1996 and 2000 elections, the Green Party had significant political differences with the Democrats, but Democrats spent half their political effort squashing Greens, (obviously leaving insufficient effort to be spent on getting their candidate elected); telling us our ideas were too radical, we need baby steps, vote for Al because he's the closest candidate you're gonna get who has even a prayer of getting elected, just pull together with us and put Democrats into power and we'll work with you on the rest later, later. In short: sit down and shut up, you Know-Nothings, you're not playing "serious" politics, the adults need to be in charge. The Green Party didn't exactly sit down and shut up quietly, but more or less they eventually acquiesced.
Now here come the Tea Partiers, who get told the same things by mainstream Republicans... sit down and shut up, your ideas are too radical... the Tea Partiers refuse to do so, and within six months of their group's formation, politicians from both sides of the aisle are falling all over themselves to discuss their concerns; pundits everywhere are debating their agenda and significance, on and on.
That tells you a lot about the American political system and the wisdom of "incremental change" and "baby steps".
But, crucially, it also tells you a lot about the Tea Party itself: the power structure doesn't fundamentally see them as a threat. As you point out in the column -- {the Tea Partiers are a variegated group, so you will hear different Tea Partiers say many different things. But...} the one thing they seem be consistent on is a desire to do away with all limits on political power: corporate limits, executive limits. Guess who ultimately benefits from that.
They remind me of that Roper guy from "A Man for All Seasons":
SIR THOMAS MOORE: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
SIR THOMAS MOORE: … Oh? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? …if you cut them down … d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
I'd like to point out that Bill, Hillary and Barry were all against gay marriage. And when voted on, it's always defeated.
I'd like to point out there is only one party with a history of racism, internment camps, trying to pack the supreme court, starting the KKK, and supporting black infanticide.
Care to guess?
send in the clowns.
i really appreciate ted's patience in educating folks, but when i say send in the clowns, i mean, very specifically, the following folks mentioned by the nice lady above: "Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck".
keeryste on a rubber crutch!
who could be so stupid as to listen to these morons?
and, shouldn't we just stand back and avoid the shrapnel, as these disgusting fools implode themsleves,(and a good portion of our country), listening to such demi-clowns?
when they're done self destructing, maybe we should just pick up the pieces, and try and do a little better keeping the gene pool tidy, next time.
oops, now i sound like a eugenicist.
peace,
f.
Larry Elder and Junior Goldberg are neocon hacks, but you folks on the left are as guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
When Ron Paul was shoring up grassroots support amongst discontented or Republicans and independents in 2008, these same neocon mouthpieces were quick in disparaging and smearing him and his supporters. And so did HuffPo, Kos and your little blog.
When so-called libertarians decry the same wars that you do (and then some more!), support the same social freedom you claim to and protest against domestic spying, you call them crackpots, just because they don't think government should skim off 30-40% of a nation's productive economy.
Intellectual dishonesty, indeed!
Hillary probably would've had the same backlash. It's partisan as well as racial.
It is really amazing that Tea Partiers are so up in arms about health care and not about the abuses of power Ted mentions in the article.
"Hillary probably would've had the same backlash. It's partisan as well as racial."
...and add to that misogynist...but to me it is really all the same socialized concept of otherizing. It is no longer politically correct to call people sub-human, therefore we have to cloak all of our rage against "them" in other terminology...black...french...liberal...college professor....nascar dad...soccer mom...white...latino...latina woman...etc...etc...etc....
It's all bigotry that's derived from the same thing: "Anyone who isn't just like me is sub-human.."
For all the busting on liberal political correctness that gets thrown around, conservative political correctness is far more damaging to humanity as a whole. Simply put, it didn't matter what George W. Bush did, the teabaggers saw him as one of their own, as did the American religious fundies.
The United States is about 3 steps away from another Bosnia if we take any of these rotten apples seriously.
We are moving towards a post-racial society. Lower middle class whites are going to need a pressure group, like the teabaggers, to look out for their interests. Other such groups can be just as truculent and irrational as the teabaggers. Look at Al Sharpton's crew, for example.
"Get the government out of my Medicare" is an aging demographic demanding that the government have no choice but to spend money on them. They're just trying to get a larger share of the pie for themselves and others like them, even if other equally worthy people are shut out. In that sense, they're no worse than a mostly black pro-affirmative action group.
I'd like to point out there is only one party with a history of racism, internment camps, trying to pack the supreme court, starting the KKK, and supporting black infanticide.
Care to guess?
Yes. That would be the Dixiecrat party. That party went defunct in the 1960s.
"Yes. That would be the Dixiecrat party. That party went defunct in the 1960s."
Only partially, they actually became Republicans for the most part. It was Nixon's Southern Strategy with the help Lee Atwater, who came up with the post-1960s political tactic of using code words to remind white voters about advances in the civil rights of blacks, such as the myth of the welfare queen.
With the election of the first minority candidate of any kind to POTUS, the Republican party has again chosen to tie their future to the same nativist groups. The difference this time is that those groups can't sustain much nationally. All it can do is turn individual states like Arizona into police states.
Actually, Susan, internment camps, packing the Supreme Court and levelling two Japanese cities with atom bombs were the work of FDR/Truman, hardly what you'd call Dixiecrats. The Dems had their part in Vietnam and a couple of interventions in Latin America, so I agree with anon, they're just as bad as the Repugs.
Post a Comment
<< Home